Comments on: Chrysler Bailout and Contract Law

By: zeusiswatching

zeusiswatching — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:12:30 +0000

I think it would have been better for MOPAR to go down the tubes. These guys are dinosaurs who have done everything their power to not build competitive cars. I don’t think the mentality goes away with this bankruptcy. Remember, we bailed out Chrysler once before.

I think Americans can and will build incredible non-petrol vehicles in the future. I worry that the future is actually hampered by letting the Big Three linger on. Apparently, the government is investing in companies that are trying to start up and build different cars.

By: jonolan

jonolan — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:53:50 +0000

I was thinking more of actions similar to the punitive and confiscatory taxes that they attempted to place on AIG bonus recipients.

I was also thinking of Obama’s regime’s threats to use the White House Press Office and the MSM to villify anyone who refused to agree to Obama’s terms for the bankruptcies.

And finally I was thinking of the power that his administration wields through the disbursement of TARP funds and/or shifts in the practices of the SCC and the Fed.

By: thoughtbasket

thoughtbasket — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:46:10 +0000

I have to disagree. Considering that federal bankruptcy judges are appointed by appeals court judges, and have 14 year terms, I don’t think they are likely to bend to Obama’s pressure because of appointment worries.

The only precedent this will set is that distressed debt investors will think twice before buying debt in companies where a unionized work force can completely tank the company, because unsecured or not, that work force has the leverage.

By: Pablo

Pablo — Wed, 27 May 2009 02:19:27 +0000

I’m with jonolan – when you have the power to promote judges, your ‘bully pulpit’ carries more weight than it should in bankruptcy court.

Obama should not have supported, let alone advocated, a scenario where unsecured creditors came out better than secured ones.

The precedent set will hurt commerce, even municipal debt issuers.

By: fayeC

fayeC — Tue, 26 May 2009 14:08:08 +0000

“Obama’s regime”? regime?? Perhaps we can characterize the disastrous imperial presidency of the Cheney/Bush group as “regime” but I think at this point we have an administration – the Obama administration. And where is the evidence of new laws meant to “punish”?

By: jonolan

jonolan — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:03:03 +0000

I think that “bully pulpit” is a bit to soft of a word to describe what Obama used to coerce the firms involved. There were allegations of threats against the firms as well.

When combined with the evidence that Obama’s regime will attempt to create new laws to punish people and firms who disagree with him, this goes beyond mere “hardball” negotiations.

Of course Obama cut his political teeth in Chicago so this shouldn’t be surprising.